Texas Cop Who Fatally Shot Man After Entering Wrong Apartment Identified

When it comes to self defense, the intent is the main thing that matters. Also, do you really think that a judge is going to rule that an officer attempting to arrest someone is "provocation"? Good luck with that.

It doesn't work like that, a police officer is always a police officer and the rules for them are different be it on duty or off.

If the door was truly ajar, then she has a right to be there be it her apartment or someone else's because that's a potential sign of burglary.

That's where you are wrong again, it's a case of murder or self defense. There is no case for manslaughter, if her self defense claim fails, she's guilty of murder.

 

Ah, we knew BobbytheHate would show up to defend the cop and attack the victim

 

Yeah making up BS isn't helpful, just like she is clearly lying.

Didn't notice that the red doormat wasn't hers, didn't notice the missing plant, didn't notice the number was wrong until she had to call 911 and go out and check the number, she didn't bother to turn on the lights after shooting him, but was able to move around someone else's apartment to administer CPR in the dark and call 911. Didn't stick around the crime scene. Claims the door was ajar when the doors autoshut.

I hope that POS b**** gets lethal injection.

 

every single apartment. degenerate dope heads are pretty much everywhere. The fact is cops are barely allowed to issue a ticket these days for smoking in their face, much less enter a residence. This is all irrelevant.

 

The apartment complex itself investigated it that day. They went to his and others apartment on that floor. I don't think it's going to end up being relevant to the murder. It's part of the investigative process though.

 

She could be lying. If she is, then I hope she gets charge appropriately. Your anti-white vigilante justice mindset isn't helping either.

 

The law is clear. When intent is relevant in a determination, the law states as such. As to arresting someone, she would need a justification to do so and if the judge thinks a policeman can walk into anybody's house and arrest without justifiable cause, then he should be disbarred.

The law is same for everyone. You can accuse other law enforcement people of trying to protect one of their own but that is done outside the law

Wrong - evidence of forced entry is the sign of a potential burglary. A door being ajar is not. How many times have you heard of a cop going into houses cos the door was ajar?

Wrong

The key difference between murder and manslaughter is the need to prove intent. The prosecution would need to prove that she intended to kill him as opposed to alternatives like scare him. This would bring what she believed and her thought process into play. That is shaky grounds and gives the defense more opportunities to raise reasonable doubt.

For manslaughter, the burden of proof is much less as her reckless action without just cause would suffice.

§ 19.02. Murder

(a) In this section:

(1) “Adequate cause” means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) “Sudden passion” means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;  or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause.  If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

§ 19.04. Manslaughter

(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.


Like I said, stick to your propaganda BS

 

SMH, that's fine, you don't understand that the law specifically talks about the rational belief of the defendant when it comes to self defense, I suppose you'll just have to be one of the people shocked in the likely event of her walking.

As to Manslaughter, there's literally no case for her actions being reckless. They were either self defense, or it was murder. Again, sounds like something you'll just have to find out the hard way since reason doesn't seem to be something you are capable of.

As to "The law is same for everyone." that's simply not the case, and it's something that is easily verifiably not the case. There are different rules when it comes to LEO's.....looks like yet another thing you'll have to find out the hard way....there's a trend.

 

lmao sounds like a great murder plan. Oh I'm sorry that I went into this guy's house and headshot him I smh thought it was mine.

 

Not really, sounds like a terrible murder plan because

A. You'd have to be a cop to start with

B. You'd have to convince people that you legitimately believed that it was your place.

On top of that, if there was just any kind of relationship between you and the other person, you'd be sunk. As far as murder plans go, that's one of the worst.

 

why you would have to be a cop? Cops offduty have more rights to self denfence "in their own residence"?
Or you mean regular people won't have a crazy union and righwing media supporting them?

 

The penal code is clear.
- § 9.32 (a) (2) defines where "reasonably belief" is relevant
- and § 9.32 (b) defines what are deemed "reasonable"
§ 9.32 (c) and (d) are independent of said belief

You dont get to spew nonsense that comes to your mind (even if there is an abundance of it in your head) and call it the law

Stop with the BS. Her firing a gun at him by definition is reckless.

Murder is basically manslaughter + intent i.e. the prosecution needs to prove manslaughter and then prove intent in order to prove murder. You cannot find someone guilty of murder if same could not be found guilty of manslaughter. That is why a lot of murder charges are plead down (or jury considers lesser charge) to a manslaughter.

The relevant law is codified in the Texas penal code, so please state where in the penal code an exemption is made for LEO?

 

You'd have to be a cop and the door would have to be open because otherwise you'd be trespassing, and ignorance or mistake is not a defense against trespassing. If you are trespassing, there's no self defense claim.

So, yeah, pretty much the worst murder plan possible.

 

This is accurate....and it applies in this case.

This is inaccurate, that section describes situations where their actions are automatically presumed reasonable, it's not an exhaustive list of what could be seen as reasonable.

D is not relevant to the case, and C is covered by her story being that she's a police officer and there was reason to believe that the apartment had potentially been broken into with the door left ajar....now was that what happened? Who knows, but that's her story.

That's never what I do killer, try to keep up.

This is an obviously inaccurate statement.

This is not accurate. Her actions were not reckless, there's no case for them being reckless. Either her actions were justifiable or her actions were murder. Manslaughter simply isn't a consideration because her actions were with the intent to kill and they were not reckless.

There's all sorts of areas where the rules are different fro LEO's than for civilians if you don't realize this obvious truth then....I mean, that's just sad.

 

There you go playing the race card. The only racist here is you my friend.

 

for the love of god stop quoting with bobby. He's a ****ing idiot.

 

This. It could be manslaughter. Simply pronouncing that it is either murder or self-defense doesn't make it true. If you are going to debate the law, at least either be trained in the law, read it or be willing to admit you might be wrong.

 

LOFL That’s your MO on this board. You can at least own that. You hate white people so much that you latch on to stuff like this thing filled with hate so much that you can’t look at it objectively.

You need help man.

 

She freaked out with the knowledge that she was gonna get buttraped in prison.